(Legal15.txt)
Legal Notes on, "How to Avoid Nearsightedness" and
your choice about using the preventive method.
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of
thinking we used when we created them."
Albert Einstein
Contents:
Discussion of medicine and legal definitions of "practice".
Defining "doctor" and "patient".
Legal Disclaimers 1, 2, 3 and 4
________________________
Dear Friends,
Subject: Getting access to, and understanding a preventive
second-opinion.
Re: When is it "medical", and when is it engineering and science?
This is a discussion of the legal aspects of the preventive
second-opinion.
But, so far, it is my judgment that the person must teach
himself how to avoid entry into nearsightedness (a negative
refractive STATE of the fundamental eye.) Here is the summary of
the legal issues. (Refernce from herbal alternative "medicine" or
Herbalists rights, legal and historical basis.)
Summary
In summary, the judicial history of prosecution of
alternative health care providers reveals the overwhelming
reliance of the courts on the manner in which a defendant
describes his or her own practice, and the specific words used.
The rights of alternative practitioners to practice their art
has rarely been questioned by the courts. Rather, they have often
been prosecuted for using words and language reserved by the
medical profession to exclusively describe their business to the
public.
There is much logic in this approach, which is an extension
of the statutes governing fraud and misrepresentation. It has
always been considered unethical and unlawful for one to lie to
the public about one's training and abilities. The problem is
that, while the legislatures and courts claim that their only
purpose is to prevent the public from being deceived as to the
qualifications of health care workers and to establish high
standards for a complex profession responsible for people's life
and health, in reality, economic and political forces have
subverted this goal and have maneuvered public health policy to
ensure increased profits.
These nefarious forces subvert the legislative and judicial
processes by legal trickery and word games. The lives and
livelihoods of many honest and well-meaning alternative health
practitioners have been destroyed by such trickery. On the other
hand, many alternative practitioners have fallen for the
temptation of enhancing their status in a patriarchal,
authoritarian society by awarding themselves titles such as
"doctor". It is the intent of the author to educate alternative
health providers about the true and valid purpose of the law, to
point out to them the nature of their rights, and to overcome the
power of the word tricksters and political con men by deflating
their games.
There will always be those who believe in the unlimited
powers of an authoritarian government to protect people from abuse
by unqualified or unscrupulous practitioners and by outright
charlatans. History, however, reveals a different story: the
abuses of government regulatory bureaucracies often greatly exceed
the abuses by individuals. The potential abuses of herbal
products will be with us as long as plants and fallible people
coexist on the earth. Experience has shown that this problem
cannot be regulated away. People throughout the world will
continue to use herbs, even when their rulers decide to outlaw or
restrict the use of herbs. Instead, it seems best to follow the
advice of Thomas Jefferson:
I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the
society but the people themselves: and if we think them not
enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome
discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform
them.
Reference from:
http://www.rmhiherbal.org/a/f.ahr3.rights.html#protect
*************************************************
LEGAL DISCLAIMER 1
Let me recite my personal disclaimer. Because I am not
medically trained and because I am averse to the prospect of being
sued for giving advice (medical or otherwise), I am stating
emphatically that everything written here ("How to Avoid
Nearsightedness", including all related pages on this site) is
nothing more than my personal opinion and experience. If you are
interested in reading about that experience, I invite you to
continue reading. If you want a medical opinion or advice, you
should contact a medical professional.
If something I write seems to be advice, you should re-read
this paragraph and understand that I am only using literary
license to convey my experiences and opinions. I offer you NO
ADVICE and I do not recommend to anyone that they should subscribe
to any treatment for any condition without proper medical advice,
EVEN IF I TELL YOU THAT I AVOID SOME MEDICAL ADVICE OR TREATMENT
FOR MYSELF.
I take PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY for my health. You should
take personal responsibility for your health (not my advice - just
my opinion). It is up to you to decide if medical professionals
and the medical industry, the food industry and others act in your
best interest or not. It is up to you to decide, if after reading
my experiences, how and whether to address any health issues
including those related to your vision.
PS: These statements are adapted from Donald Rehm's "Myopia Myth"
and the "Vision Freedom" site -- but the insight they
developed about legal responsibility applies equally to this
site.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
LEGAL DISCLAIMER 2
"How to Avoid Nearsightedness", is an educational tool that
can assist you in accurately understanding the eye's proven
dynamic behavior.
Our book is not intended to be a medical text, nor does it
substitute for medical diagnosis or treatment of eye disease by an
ophthalmologist. The techniques developed for prevention are
derived from the concept presented in the book and is considered
to be the second opinion. This second opinion is based on proven
scientific facts as they concern the dynamic behavior of the
natural and fundamental eye.
It is the reader's sole responsibility to determine the
suitability of this book's advocacy for his use. Once you make up
your own mind to use the preventive method, you should then find
an OD who will support you in your major effort -- based on your
own best judgment. There are ODs who are now helping their own
children in the use of the plus lens for prevention. That is the
type of "open minded" OD you need.
This site is dedicated to your own personal interest and your
own goal in life -- where you assume complete technical and legal
control over your own eyes.
You must understand the intended purpose of this site and
assume all risks and liabilities resulting from your actions.
I can tell you personally that I wish I had been offered the
preventive method advocated here. I acknowledged that the method
is difficult and requires your own understanding. I wish I had
been offered this alternative -- when I was at the threshold. I
believe that the method would have been effective at that point.
Because of the advocacy of Dr. Jacob Raphaelson, I realized
that the person (you) must play a very strong role in prevention.
If the effort is neglected or ignored at that point (by you) then
nearsightedness can not be prevented. In the future you will find
some ODs who will help you -- once you personally make the
decision to use the plus for prevention. The very nature of these
scientific arguments assumes that you have both the knowledge and
motivation to take a large if not total responsibility to carry
out the preventive work successfully.
***********************
LEGAL DISCLAIMER 3
TRUTH ON THE INTERNET
Truth goes through three stages:
First it is ridiculed.
Then it is violently opposed.
Finally it is accepted as self-evident.
I subscribe to the "HONcode" principles of the Health On the
Net Foundation.
[Although technically, I deal with the eye's behavior as a
well-engineered system, and present objective facts on that basis.
Therefore the term "health" is not the quite correct term to use
to describe the method of prevention that I advocate in my book
and on this site.]
In conformance with the principles of the HONcode, I state
that:
1. Funding, services and material for this site are provided
solely by advocates for prevention. Our advocacy is a result
of an exhaustive effort on our part to determine if
nearsightedness can be prevented. I published a book to
detail this judgment of optometrists, ophthalmologists and
myself on this matter. No commercial interests (including the
commercial interests of doctors, hospitals, and/or the
optical industry and the pharmaceutical industry) are
involved.
2. Our advocacy exists solely to benefit you and for that
reason I consult with professionally qualified, scientists,
engineers, consumer advocates, and medical people.
3. Unlike the American Medical Association, which routinely
spends millions of dollars influencing legislation and the
operation of our government to benefit its members
financially, I spend no money for such purposes.
4. The purpose of this site is to provide you information which
might enable you to make an intelligent choice between two
mutually exclusive alternatives. The specific issue concerns the
scientifically proven effect that the minus lens has on
the refractive status of the natural eye. If you do not believe
this scientific truth -- then you should run the experiment
yourself. Only you must judge the experimental outcome.
Science works in no other way.
MORE ABOUT TRUTH AND THE INTERNET
The Internet has made a nearly unlimited amount of scientific
(and health) information available to the public, and reliance on
this source will continue to increase. In past generations --
before the widespread availability of such information -- one
could do little else but rely upon the advice of one's doctor.
Please remember that "the doctor" has children of his own. Some
doctors who understand the deep scientific issues and proof
involved are helping THEIR OWN CHILDREN in the use of a plus lens
for prevention. This is the origin of the "second opinion"
concept in medicine.
Information from the government and the media tends to be
censored and further, is intended to serve the interests of big
money and "traditional medicine". Further, some public sprinted
engineers and pilots have been sued to shut them up.
You will not find a program devoted to prevention with a plus
on television, nor even on public television. This would
antagonize too many powerful and vested interests. Now, because
of the true freedom of speech that does exist on the Internet, all
this is changing. We are learning how much influence "traditional
methods" can have on our lives.
We are learning that there is more than one opinion on nearly
everything. In many cases, the opinions are profoundly
contradictory or even in direct opposition. Finding the truth
about fundamentally scientific topics -- when properly implemented
-- can result in your being able to enjjoy clear distant vision
for life. The facts concerning the dynamic behavior of the
fundamental eye. can be agonizingly difficult to establish.
How does one determine if information presented on a Web site
is accurate?
Even organizations with prestigious sounding names and people
with impressive titles do not necessarily know or speak the truth.
Their beliefs are very often flawed because of a biased education,
limited experience, open or hidden financial interest, face-saving
concerns, peer pressure or other factors.
When you learn to ask the right question you can lead
yourself to a better answer -- than we have had in the past. That
is the philosophy and approach presented to you on this site.
The history of health care is full of instances where
something easy-to-use was widely believed to be a fact by all the
experts -- and was later shown to be false.
When you actually CHECK the experimental data yourself, you
find that the "wildly held" belief that "environment" has NO
EFFECT on the refractive status of the eye is indeed a "false
belief".
You must be thorough and complete to gather as much
information as you can before making a scientific and/or "health"
decision. The truth is there but you must search for it using
YOUR qualities of common sense and scientific judgment.
**********************************************
LEGAL DISCLAIMER 4
This site is dedicated to the concept of freedom of speech as
established by the U. S. Bill of Rights. In addition there is
the issue of academic freedom, since I hold the unpopular but
accurate concept that the natural eye is proven to change its
refractive state when the visual environment is changed.
Optometrists and ophthalmologist who disagree with this
concept should respond on this forum with an honest discussion,
rather than bringing legal actions against me. I will post their
objections so that you can judge the nature of their opposition to
this reasonable concept that the evolution-designed eye is dynamic
rather than passive. It is your right to be adequately informed
about this preventive "second opinion".
By open, honest technical review and discussion you should be
able to learn more about their reasons for the objections to
effective prevention with a plus lens.
Yes, prevention (and recovery from 20/60 to 20/20) is
difficult. But why not be fair minded about both the difficulties
and opportunities of prevention?
To avoid confusion as to the nature of the discussion, please
use the term, "focal state" to describe what you actually measure.
This will save us a great deal of technical difficulty, and these
words will enable us to avoid anger and misunderstandings. We can
have an accurate technical discussion about the behavior of all
eyes. The Donders-Helmholtz theory and picture of the eye as a
box-camera is no longer a technically accurate concept of the
eye's behavior.
When all fundamental eyes are tested they always change their
focal state in a negative direction when a minus lens is placed on
them. All primate eyes do this. This is a matter of engineering
and science -- and confirmed by direct experimental test.
Since this issues is not about medicine, nor even related to
medicine, (unless you believe that a positive or negative focal
state of the natural eye is an organic defect) you can examine the
objective factual data yourself and reach your own conclusion
about the inherent behavior of all fundamental eyes.
There is no intention to make improper statements, only the
desire to help you form an opinion about the course of action that
you MIGHT take to clear your distant vision to 20/20. (i.e., to
change your focal state from -1/2 diopter to a value of +1/2
diopters). This change can be of great value to you if your
long-term career goal requires that you have 20/20 distant vision
for life.
I believe that evolution designed a sophisticated
automatically focused camera. A scientific review of this type
should precede any discussion of the defective eye -- or the
"cause" of any defect. Since the focal state of the eye tracks
the average visual environment, (or accommodation system) then the
eye can not be regarded as defective if it has either a positive
or negative refractive status.
Ultimately your own review of the objective experimental data
will help you resolve the issue. I am concerned about being
accused of making statements about the eye that I have never made.
I have never said that a confined environment causes the eye to
become defective. In simple terms I stated that, since all eyes
track or follow the average visual environment, a more negative
environment will simply produce an eye with a more negative focal
state.
I am responsible however, for technical typos and
inaccuracies that may exist in the text of my book. If you find
them, please contact me so that I can correct them.
I provide this engineering advice with the idea that I wish I
PERSONALLY could have been on the "receiving end" of this advice.
By this, I mean WHEN the method COULD have been effective for me.
I take this advice as an "either-or" decision you must make BEFORE
you begin wearing a minus lens. I hope YOU understand the
recommendations and suggestions in that context.
Otis Brown